United States v. Adalberto Murguia-Rodriguez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3742
9th Cir.2016Background
- The Court Interpreters Act requires certified interpreters in U.S.-instituted proceedings when a party's English proficiency inhibits participation, with strict waiver on-record requirements.
- Murguia-Rodriguez was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana and felon in possession of ammunition; trial used a court-appointed interpreter and he testified he was unaware of the marijuana.
- Jurors found him guilty of possession with intent to distribute; 50+ kilograms identified; counted as 51–63 months guidelines; he was sentenced to 55 months plus supervised release.
- Before sentencing, Murguia-Rodriguez stated he preferred to proceed in English and indicated the interpreter could stay; the district judge dismissed the interpreter without complying with 28 U.S.C. § 1827(f)(1).
- The majority vacates his sentence for failure to follow the waiver procedures, but affirms the conviction; remands for a new sentencing hearing with potential interpreter use.
- The dissent would apply plain-error review and would remand for factual findings on whether Murguia-Rodriguez’s language abilities affected sentencing, or affirm with no prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of interpreter complied with §1827(f)(1) | Murguia-Rodriguez did not expressly waive on the record. | The judge inferred waiver by asking him to proceed in English and by removing the interpreter. | Waiver not validly express on record; statutory procedures not followed. |
| Whether district court erred under Court Interpreters Act at sentencing | Dismissal violated the Act's waiver requirements. | Proceeding in English was permissible given his stated comfort and counsel's participation. | Error occurred due to lack of proper waiver on the record. |
| Whether the error was harmless or prejudicial | Lack of interpreter affected understanding and communication at sentencing. | Murguia-Rodriguez allocuted in English and provided mitigating arguments; no prejudice shown. | Plain-error review applies; error not harmless; remand warranted. |
| Whether a remand for fact-finding on language ability is appropriate | District court should determine if English skills inhibited understanding before resentencing. | Record lacks essential findings; remand is proper to determine impact on substantial rights. | Remand for de novo sentencing with interpreter if needed; or determine no interpreter required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Si, 333 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (mandates on-record interpreter determination when language barriers exist)
- United States v. Mayans, 17 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1994) (review framework for errors in interpreter waivers)
- United States v. Lim, 794 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1986) (remand when interpreter issues affect proceedings)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2005) (harmless-error considerations in appellate review)
- United States v. Kortgaard, 425 F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 2005) (waiver-related issues and preservation principles in review)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error review framework and prejudice requirement)